Proposal to improve Acceptable Ads criteria

[Till]

Proposed addition:
Labeling and positioning requirements do not apply for text-links with affiliate referrer id's embedded in the content of the page.

Why is this change proposed?
We have received many requests from websites to whitelist the text-links with affiliate referers ID’s, arguing it is text-only and very unobtrusive. Currently, we do not whitelist these requests because these do not comply with our guidelines. However, we like to put this up to discussion with our community. The goal oft he Acceptable Ads initiative ist to support small websites and blogs that rely on advertising and choose not to implement intrusive banners. We believe that the text-link ads are very unobtrsuvive (they look like any other link) but, naturally, there is no seperation between content and ad. Also, labeling the text-link ads would make it more obtrusive, thus contradicting the purpose to make ads as unobtrusive as possible.

Concerns
Limited transparency as most users will not be able to recognize that the links are paid for.

Everyone, please let us know if you think this change is acceptable or if there are better ways to phrase it!

[Truman]

When a text link is subtle and embedded well into content it doesn't hold the same form of 'advertising' like a skyscraper does. Image based banners change the user experience and add a level of annoyance to a page. They can change the formatting and layout.

Text ads that are embedded and which look identical to a standard link can add to the user experience. If the affiliate link is directing to precise products relating to the topic in question then the user is aided - he or she may have really been looking for that exact match. One does not have to click the link though, and it does not change the way the page is viewed. It is subtle, it is a choice. The fact it is an affiliate link is un-important to my browsing experience. If someone earns money for a link that looks like any other link on a page then im not affected. The variance in the look and feel of the site is ultimately minimal.

In my oppinion when a link is unobtrusive and naturally embedded into content then it should not be banned by adblocker.

Truman

[TimSchu]

I think this is a very smart and balanced change, which I support!

Tim

[Dave Thompson]

Un-obtrusive ads are fine, if the user experience is not being affected and the links look well placed inside text whether it be an affiliate link or not should be no problem.

Im going to say adopt the change.

[greiner]

I totally agree that such hyperlinks should not be blocked by Adblock Plus. However, I would like to suggest some additions to the draft which add some ad-type specifics to prevent the abuse of text-links such as:

- Limit the amount of ad-words (words in the text that are links which have a referrer ID) per regular words in the text to prevent having too many ads in the text

- Disallow redirects through ad-sites such as adf.ly which are extremely annoying

- Ad-links should not be formatted or behave differently than other links on the site (e.g. regular links are blue and underlined while ad-links are red, blinking and bold)

- Ad-links should not be misleading

- placed somewhere on the page where the user might confuse them with actual page elements such as the navigation bar
- the link text should be relevant to the advertised product (e.g. a link that says "iPhone" should not link to a porn site)

[mscwebmaster]

I'm a web developer who personally hates advertising, so I have Adblock installed. But I have a couple of affiliate accounts I want to link to on my website. I accept that AdBlock blocks my affiliate banner, but I've noticed that Adblock blocks even my text-based affiliate links, and even the anchor text for the link. For right now, I have a link to my contact page for people who want the affiliate link.

I'd prefer they could at least click the text-based link that DOES behave like other links on the page. It is unobtrusive and not objectionable at all. Even for someone like me, who hates advertising in my web surfing. Adopt the change, please.

[Till]

The criteria have been updated: http://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria

[Till]

Topic re-opened due to some recent criticism of YieldKit ads. Everyone, please let us know your thoughts!

[Herby]

Yieldkit is a annoying affilate-link creator, that will transform blogger contents to affilate content, if you can call it content after.

If a blogger wants to use it, his soul and spirit will be lost. The content will be like a TV-spot after it.

Thx Sascha for your detailed output; awesome.
Eyeo, be ashamed!

If you can read this, there is a truth. Thx for not deleting that.

[greiner]

Yieldkit is a annoying affilate-link creator, that will transform blogger contents to affilate content, if you can call it content after.

This discussion is about defining annoying ads - specifically about the last paragraph in the Acceptable Ads criteria that you can find here: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria. In what way do you think YieldKit's ads are annoying or obtrusive?

Also keep in mind that Bloggers and other content creators can create those affiliate links manually, anyway.

[Daegol]

I generally have a problem with this kind of advertising. Underlining was developed to highlight text as intended by the author, not by the advertiser. Thus the advertising links do distract and irritate me, especially as they are often double underlined and in bright colour.

Moreover, users new to a page may not be able to distinguish immediately between content links and advertising links.

I'd still say: Keep content and advertising separate.

[bryan140140]

why not just have a single add on the screen (not one that is in front of the video) but one thats text based with lots of color and humor. i found that if the ads are funny or entertaining people are more willing to look at them.

[rockyshaw]

I will be very frank here and I expect that the adblock plus not see me as a troll.
There are certain websites I use on my day to day websites which require a lot of money to run and maintain and to keep the hackers at bay. I like the idea of Acceptable Ads philosophy but not the eligibility. According to me any organization serving an unacceptable ad must be blacklisted. For example Google must be blacklisted because of there ad in YouTube and that there computer read emails for serving ads. Yes I know that there ads are blocked in Gmail but I think they should be blocked all together, the whole company until and unless all of their websites use the adblock acceptable ads criteria.

[greiner]

Non-search ads are not part of it… check out the proposal to get more information about which types of Google ads are included in the Acceptable Ads program.

The other issues you mention seem to have more to do with Google's privacy policy than with Adblock Plus.

[Temba]

Ill make my post really simple, If Adblobk stops blocking adds, ill find a new app that does.

I'll have to agree, not all of us excepts ads, and if we are forced to have ads because SOME people like them, if adblock stops blocking half the ads, and if adblock stops blocking intrusive privacy violating google ads, then what is the point of having ad block. SOME users, want to see annoying ads FINE, but PLEASE let US the user decide that for ourselfs, don't white list ads for us, it defeats the purpos of having and using ad block. DO NOT white list ads for us, just provide a list of what you deem 'exceptable' ads and let US THE USER decide whether or not we want to black or white list the ads. or I to will be looking for another app.